On 06/09/06 20:44 +0100, Ricardo Martins wrote: > On 20:13 Wed 06 Sep, Ville Koskinen wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:04:10 +0200 > > Sander van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 9/6/06, Cedric Krier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, I'm working on an ebuild for dwm. > > > > (http://gentoo-sunrise.org/svn/reviewed/x11-wm/dwm/) > > > > > > > > It will be great if you can apply this patch on config.mk. > > > > It allows to specify compilation option from command line. > > > > > > Is that really useful? I can understand that people make packages for > > > binary distro's, but if you're going to build from source anyway I > > > don't really understand what this adds; > > > > Sssh. He's a Gentoo user. Don't upset him. > > > > Okay, sorry. Seriously, I don't quite understand how you can configure > > dwm with Portage. Do you make all the config.h defines as USE > > variables? Wouldn't that be *more* difficult than simply editing the > > source? > > I agree with you. It's a lot easier to configure dwm simply editing > config.h than using Portage. I even prefer using a few commands to > update dwm, it's only a matter of doing something like "cd ~/dwm; hg pull; > hg up -v; hg log|less; less config.arg.h; vim config.h; make clean; make". > > That said, I'm also a Gentoo user. Yeah, I'm waiting for the "OMG RICER" > jokes. :) > > An ebuild for dwm would be either too complex, due to the number of > compile-time configuration options, or too simplistic, perhaps > defaulting to config.default.h. I don't think it's worth it, I reckon > most Gentoo+dwm users do something similar to what I do. > > I'm sorry if this sounds too negative or offensive, but that's not my > aim, I'm just (rudely) stating my opinion. >
So if you look at the ebuild, you will see that you can setup a config.h. The patch allow just to specify some compilation option. Cédric
pgpXuMCaXw2sO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
